Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 189
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You and JJ can try this in as many threads as you want, but it is going to fail every time, as shown by how you were just forced to make a blanket withdrawal of all claims in the "Jesus Should Have Written" thread, and attempted to put the burden of proof back on Christians. You two push as far as you can with completely dishonest arguments, forcing people to go round and round with you, when all you have are fallacies supporting your hate-filled rants and snide, condescending remarks. It's pathetic. Really.
    Does that mean that you accept the Bible description of Jesus The Christ or not?

    ---------- Post added at 08:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    When you make claims that Jesus fed 5,000 people who came to hear him speak - I would expect that there would be accounts of this great narrator, there aren't and further that the miracles of feeding them would be documented, there aren't that either.
    Apparently, even his own chaps didn't notice the great event. In Matthew chapter 14, JtC feeds 5000 families with five loaves and two fish. Then in chapter 15, he feeds 4000 families with seven loaves and some fish. Before the chapter 15 feeding, the disciples asked "Where are we to get the food?" Pretty dumb thing to ask when they'd witnessed JtC feed more people with less food only a chapter previously!
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    OK. And?
    If we don’t want to consider non-material events that happened 2000 years that don’t meet current day material standards, we will claim there is no evidence for a spiritual event that is reported to have happened 2000 years ago because what is recorded does not meet our current-day physical criteria.

    So do these academic historians believe that Jesus performed all the miracles claimed of him too?

    And do these historians accept as factual that Jesus of Nazareth is really the deity that created the universe?
    Most Academic historians accept as factual that “Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.” His miracles are a different area of study by theologians because they are spiritual in nature and most historians study and report on physical records. “Your OP, however, is claiming that “There is no reason to believe that the Jesus Christ of the Bible …. existed.” Did you want to rephrase your OP?

    You lump man with miracle-worked together as a reason for non-existent. As you told Saul “It's already in the OP as a requirement of this debate.” In other words, I guess to your strange way of reasoning, there is no evidence of Jesus because he was a miracle worker. If we wasn’t a miracle worker, maybe you might recognize the evidence of his life as most historians do. Don’t you see your faulty reasoning for evidence of existence?

    And is this the same exact Jesus that performed all the miracles in front of thousands?
    Yes. However, academic comparative religious studies don’t tell students how or what to believe with regards to spiritual phenomena in religious studies. And there have been many such events throughout the world religions over the ages. They offer as much factual and comparative, objective information as possible. In the case of Christianity: “Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.” Students learn about the miracles of Christ as recorded. However, how students process those historical spiritual events throughout history is up to the student. This does not negate from the factual information in the course study that “Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

    I am not saying Jesus doesn't existing. I am saying there is no evidence to show that he exists other than as an imaginary character for a religion.
    The evidence of Jesus physical existence as man is not disputed by serious historians or academics comparative religious studies. “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

    I'm sure our historical academic standards have little warrant to seek evidence of this miracles - right?
    There are lots of Biblical historians who have written about the miracles of Jesus. Whether or not people believe in those historical spiritual events and accept the evidence reported by people who witnessed such phenomena 2000 years ago is up to person. However, Jesus physical existence is not determined by his miracles.

    "Biblical scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona have collated and analysed over 3,400 scholarly works and articles that have been written on the historical claims surrounding Jesus' life since 1975, so as to determine what are the minimal facts of history which all serious historians agree on," Edwards explains.

    "Their work demonstrates that virtually every serious historian, whether Christian, atheist, agnostic or otherwise acknowledges the following three minimal facts about Jesus Christ: (1) that he died by crucifixion, (2) that his disciples genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them on a number of occasions; and (3) that the early church exploded in numbers soon after Jesus death."

    While Paulkovich dismisses Christianity as "a very minor and inconsequential cult founded late in the first century," and Jesus himself as "nothing more than oral legend", Edwards maintains that modern scholarship is concerned not with Jesus' existence, but rather his resurrection.

    He points to the "absence of any compelling naturalistic explanation for these agreed minimal facts of history," that is, the life, death and ministry of Jesus, that has led many academics to "seriously consider the evidence for the resurrection".

    "For example, Oxford Professor Richard Swinburne in his book 'The Resurrection of God Incarnate' writes that it is 97 per cent probable, based on a Bayes Theorem probability analysis of the agreed facts of history, that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead," Edwards says.

    "Even Time Magazine, in an article published last year, acknowledged that this Jewish carpenter from Nazareth has left a bigger historical footprint in the world than any person who has ever existed."
    http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...ians/41234.htm
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  3. Likes GodIsGood liked this post
  4. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If we don’t want to consider non-material events that happened 2000 years that don’t meet current day material standards, we will claim there is no evidence for a spiritual event that is reported to have happened 2000 years ago because what is recorded does not meet our current-day physical criteria.
    So are you saying that it is impossible to prove the physical existence of Jesus Christ the miracle worker? That the miracles didn't happen at all in the physical world - people didn't come back from the dead or got fed? These are all 'spiritual matters' only with zero effect on the physical world with no witnesses, including the thousand that interacted with them. Correct?



    Most Academic historians accept as factual that “Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”
    Okay. So they don't accept that is no physical evidence for the Jesus of the Bible. A simple yes or no is sufficient here.


    His miracles are a different area of study by theologians because they are spiritual in nature and most historians study and report on physical records. “Your OP, however, is claiming that “There is no reason to believe that the Jesus Christ of the Bible …. existed.” Did you want to rephrase your OP?
    No. The OP is fine because the Jesus of the Bible performed miracles. This other character you allude to is not the same person. It is a convenience that only points to a possible source for your beliefs but not in the truthfulness of them.


    You lump man with miracle-worked together as a reason for non-existent.
    No, I am saying there is no reason to believe the miracle worker existed. It's a different claim.

    As you told Saul “It's already in the OP as a requirement of this debate.” In other words, I guess to your strange way of reasoning, there is no evidence of Jesus because he was a miracle worker. If we wasn’t a miracle worker, maybe you might recognize the evidence of his life as most historians do. Don’t you see your faulty reasoning for evidence of existence?
    Nope. Because this discussion is about the Jesus Christ in the Bible in his entirety - virgin birth, miracles, death and deification. Any other character that may resemble him is irrelevant because the claim in the Bible isn't just of a man but a deity-man-deity figure.

    If there is no evidence of that figure that stands up to scrutiny then there is no reason to believe he exists.

    If the Bible made no such claims then we wouldn't be having this discussion. We don't dispute King George III's existence do we? There are no supernatural claims he made.

    Yes. However, academic comparative religious studies don’t tell students how or what to believe with regards to spiritual phenomena in religious studies. And there have been many such events throughout the world religions over the ages. They offer as much factual and comparative, objective information as possible. In the case of Christianity: “Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.” Students learn about the miracles of Christ as recorded. However, how students process those historical spiritual events throughout history is up to the student. This does not negate from the factual information in the course study that “Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”
    Sure it doesn't negate actual evidence but that evidence is not of the Jesus in the Bible. That means per the OP there is no reason to believe he existed.

    And we are not necessarily talking about 'spiritual' matters either. There are many claims about Jesus that aren't entirely spiritual - namely all those interactions he had with many hundreds or thousands of witnesses.

    Just because a man existed it doesn't mean that your deity-man did either. There is no link between the two that could been made.


    The evidence of Jesus physical existence as man is not disputed by serious historians or academics comparative religious studies. “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”
    Again - a man existing is not the same character depicted in the Bible. If you will concede that Jesus Christ was merely a philosopher and not a deity then I wholly agree with you. Is that what you are claiming?

    There are lots of Biblical historians who have written about the miracles of Jesus. Whether or not people believe in those historical spiritual events and accept the evidence reported by people who witnessed such phenomena 2000 years ago is up to person. However, Jesus physical existence is not determined by his miracles.
    Written about is not quite the same as believing they actually happened and seeking evidence either. If it is entirely voluntary then it is clear that there is no evidence even possible and the Bible Jesus and all his claims didn't happen. Or rather, there isn't even a reason to assume they ever did.

    Producing evidence of a human is not part of this OP - unless you have evidence of Jesus Christ's actual existence and his miracles - especially the ones that affected many people with many eye witnesses then my OP stands - that there is no reason to believe that he ever existed - it is wholly a religious fiction only believed by Christians.

    I think you are agreeing with me here.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; January 9th, 2015 at 06:56 AM.

  5. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    "Biblical scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona .....
    ... Oxford Professor Richard Swinburne in his book ....
    More Christians! Habermas and Licona are Christian Bible apologists and Swinburne is a theologian. All you are doing is collecting Christian believers. Of course they are going to argue that JtC existed - they are believers for goodness sake!!

    'The Resurrection of God Incarnate' writes that it is 97 per cent probable, based on a Bayes Theorem probability analysis of the agreed facts of history,...
    The 'facts' of history?? What 'facts' of history point to the existence of BibleJesus

    "Their work demonstrates that virtually every serious historian, whether Christian, atheist, agnostic or otherwise acknowledges the following three minimal facts about Jesus Christ: (1) that he died by crucifixion, (2) that his disciples genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them on a number of occasions;...
    What utter balderdash! I challenge you to provide ONE atheist historian that even believes in Jesus The Christ much less believe those three things about him. That is just pure apologetic bunk!
    ... and (3) that the early church exploded in numbers soon after Jesus death."
    Wrong again. In fact, after the alleged death, Christianity split up into various warring sects. Christianity didn't 'explode' until the fourth century.

    Even Time Magazine, in an article published last year, acknowledged that this Jewish carpenter from Nazareth has left a bigger historical footprint in the world than any person who has ever existed."
    That doesn't prove that JtC existed, it just means that Christianity is popular. Even so, only one-third of the world are Christians.

    BTW. It's not 'Jesus of Nazareth'. There was no Nazareth as described in the Bible in the 1st century. It's supposed to be Jesus the Nazorean not Jesus of Nazareth.
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  6. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Lots of positive claims, pretty much no support for said claims.

    Claim: Josephus and Tacitus are not referring to the same Jesus as mentioned in the New Testament manuscripts.

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Josephus and Tacitus are not referring to the same Jesus as mentioned in the New Testament manuscripts.

    Claim: Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So are you saying that it is impossible to prove the physical existence of Jesus Christ the miracle worker? That the miracles didn't happen at all in the physical world - people didn't come back from the dead or got fed? These are all 'spiritual matters' only with zero effect on the physical world with no witnesses, including the thousand that interacted with them. Correct?
    By filtering any evidence that includes mentions of supernatural events, you are by design making it impossible to provide evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. You even state in your OP:

    For a man of such great acts, some affecting thousands (e.g. the feeding of the 5,000, the rising of the dead) it is surprising that no record would remain of such deeds - none first-hand and certainly none second hand, especially considering there are many detailed records that exist of that time.

    Records do remain of such deeds, but as you are arbitrarily choosing not to count these records as evidence (and any other record that mentions anything supernatural), of course no "record" would remain. This is just circular reasoning.

    You've already got a lot of work ahead of you with the above challenges, so I'll leave it here for now.

  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Lots of positive claims, pretty much no support for said claims.

    Claim: Josephus and Tacitus are not referring to the same Jesus as mentioned in the New Testament manuscripts.

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Josephus and Tacitus are not referring to the same Jesus as mentioned in the New Testament manuscripts.
    Simple. None make mention of all the awesome acts that Jesus made. At best, they are referring to a possible preacher that may have existed. But without a specific reference to great acts there is no evidence to support that it is the same person as the one in the Bible. At least none that were forwarded in the other thread.


    Claim: Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.
    I could be wrong on this but there are no historians that take the miracles seriously - that they actually happened.

    However, my statement is too broad. There are historians of comparative religion who seek to understand what people used to believe was true. I meant the statement to refer to them taking supernatural events seriously.


    By filtering any evidence that includes mentions of supernatural events, you are by design making it impossible to provide evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. You even state in your OP:

    For a man of such great acts, some affecting thousands (e.g. the feeding of the 5,000, the rising of the dead) it is surprising that no record would remain of such deeds - none first-hand and certainly none second hand, especially considering there are many detailed records that exist of that time.
    Well, I certainly want the evidence to be materialistic and natural. There's nothing wrong with that - there should have been plenty of witnesses to many fantastic events.


    Records do remain of such deeds, but as you are arbitrarily choosing not to count these records as evidence (and any other record that mentions anything supernatural), of course no "record" would remain. This is just circular reasoning.
    Religious texts are rejected because they talk about more than just events that happened. They talk about deities and claims of sin and all sorts of beliefs that are largely unprovable. However, when those claims intersect our physical reality and those people living at the time, some of whom would be recording them - without the religious baggage then it is entirely fair to ignore texts that are more likely exaggerations than fact.

    I stand by rejecting the Bible as a history book.

    You've already got a lot of work ahead of you with the above challenges, so I'll leave it here for now.
    Hopefully, those are good enough answers.

  8. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Simple. None make mention of all the awesome acts that Jesus made. At best, they are referring to a possible preacher that may have existed. But without a specific reference to great acts there is no evidence to support that it is the same person as the one in the Bible. At least none that were forwarded in the other thread.
    To be clear, you are making the following claim:

    It is necessarily the case that for a document/artifact to be considered "evidence" for the existence of Jesus, it must make reference to the miracles. Meaning that it is impossible that Josephus and Tacitus are referring to Jesus (as referenced in the New Testament (NT) manuscripts) because they do not make mention of the miracles.

    This is a False Dilemma. There is an Option C; namely that it is possible that Josephus and Tacitus are indeed referring to the very same Jesus as mentioned in the NT manuscripts. I only have to come up with a possible scenario to defeat your argument. That possible scenario is of course that the corroborating details surrounding the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts and the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents match (i.e. Jesus had a brother named James, Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, etc.). This offers a compelling reason to believe that the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents is one in the same as the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts.

    Of course, it doesn't have to be compelling or even plausible, only possible--because that is how your argument is structured.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I could be wrong on this but there are no historians that take the miracles seriously - that they actually happened.
    What do you mean by "take the miracles seriously"?

    Regardless, I take your response as a retraction of the claim, as "taking the miracles seriously" has no impact on whether or not "Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record."

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Religious texts are rejected because they talk about more than just events that happened. They talk about deities and claims of sin and all sorts of beliefs that are largely unprovable. However, when those claims intersect our physical reality and those people living at the time, some of whom would be recording them - without the religious baggage then it is entirely fair to ignore texts that are more likely exaggerations than fact.

    I stand by rejecting the Bible as a history book.
    Opinion noted. As long as you understand that you haven't offered any arguments as to why others should reject the Bible as a history book, you're welcome to reject the Bible all you want.

  9. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No, I am saying there is no reason to believe the miracle worker existed. It's a different claim.
    Ok, well then as I stated earlier, of course there is no reason to believe because naturalistic (material/standards) yield naturalistic explanations. So then you ask is it impossible to prove the physical existence of Jesus Christ the miracle worker using materialism as a framework? It is not impossible, it’s that materialistic standards won’t accept the spiritual or supernatural evidence. If I refuse to look through the microscope to see the invisible particle on the petri dish, I might assume it's impossible to prove what's on the perti dish because I am not willing to look through the microscope. Thus, what's on the petri dish does not exist for me because I am not willing to use the method to consider the evidence.

    But again, you may be missing the trees for the forest here. Can I ask you a fundamental question regarding your objective with this thread? Are you willing to use “ intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice, the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way, unbias, and confidence in reason“ to consider the existence of Jesus Christ the incarnation of the Son of God?

    If so, I can present some reasoning and arguments that you can consider.
    Last edited by eye4magic; January 9th, 2015 at 04:13 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  10. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    To be clear, you are making the following claim:

    It is necessarily the case that for a document/artifact to be considered "evidence" for the existence of Jesus, it must make reference to the miracles. Meaning that it is impossible that Josephus and Tacitus are referring to Jesus (as referenced in the New Testament (NT) manuscripts) because they do not make mention of the miracles.
    No, it is not 'necessarily' the case at all. I am saying something weaker, which is that there is currently no reason to believe that Jesus Christ exists - not that he actually doesn't. However, the chance of that being true is similar to any other imaginary universe being true (but that is another topic - this topic is to say that there is insufficient historical reason to believe he exists).

    Specifically on J&T, they are rejected on the basis that they are make no mention of Jesus Christ's miracles in a manner that is incontrovertible. How do I know that? Because we are having this discussion. That the question of his existence is debatable means that there is no evidence otherwise.


    This is a False Dilemma. There is an Option C; namely that it is possible that Josephus and Tacitus are indeed referring to the very same Jesus as mentioned in the NT manuscripts. I only have to come up with a possible scenario to defeat your argument. That possible scenario is of course that the corroborating details surrounding the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts and the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents match (i.e. Jesus had a brother named James, Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, etc.). This offers a compelling reason to believe that the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents is one in the same as the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts.
    No - this is not possible because any references should also include the other claims, especially if they were true. If the Bible Jesus didn't perform any miracles then I would agree with what you've here. But it is claimed he did and those actions would have had a massive impact on the thousands of people, some of whom would have written a great deal about those events; to see them unmentioned makes is much more likely that Jesus Christ and all the claims made of him are a fiction. Further, this scenario fits with other things we know about other religions and their own specific claims.

    It is as compelling as someone picking up a Harry Potter fanfic and assuming the real Harry Potter exists. The reason why is that if HP was true then we would have evidence of the great battle with Voldemort or Dragons or any other claims. Unfortunately, the unrealistic claims made in the Bible (e.g. lots of dead people coming back to life), casts doubt on the entire story and the lack of corroborating evidence confirms it.


    Of course, it doesn't have to be compelling or even plausible, only possible--because that is how your argument is structured.
    It's also possible that dragons exist or that the Red Sea really parted or there was really a Flood - but only in people's imaginations. I know what you're trying to do - link a tiny bit of history to your deity but you cannot do that - you may as well say that because Rome exists then so does Jesus since the Bible also mentions Rome. So no, it is not possible that there would be a mention of Jesus Christ without his miracles.



    What do you mean by "take the miracles seriously"?
    Believe they really happened.

    Regardless, I take your response as a retraction of the claim, as "taking the miracles seriously" has no impact on whether or not "Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record."
    No, it I just clarified that statement - miracles are interesting as a study of how humans imagine how a deity might work but I doubt that any 'serious' historian, that isn't already Christian would bother studying the actuality of the miracles.


    Opinion noted. As long as you understand that you haven't offered any arguments as to why others should reject the Bible as a history book, you're welcome to reject the Bible all you want.
    Um - because it isn't a history book - it's a religious manual. It may contain references to historical things but that makes it no more convincing on the reality of Jesus as Harry Potter's reference to London, make Harry Potter true.

    In fact, it's not even a specific claim of mine - it isn't accepted as a history book in the first place for me to reject. If religious claims were history then they would be called history - why do you think the distinction is there in the first place?

    ---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Ok, well then as I stated earlier, of course there is no reason to believe because naturalistic (material/standards) yield naturalistic explanations. So then you ask is it impossible to prove the physical existence of Jesus Christ the miracle worker using materialism as a framework? It is not impossible, it’s that materialistic standards won’t accept the spiritual or supernatural evidence. If I refuse to look through the microscope to see the invisible particle on the petri dish, I might assume it's impossible to prove what's on the perti dish because I am not willing to look through the microscope. Thus, what's on the petri dish does not exist for me because I am not willing to use the method to consider the evidence.
    If Roman history were full of references to people rising from the dead that would be incontrovertible evidence. As I pointed out and you keep ignoring, there are some very specific claims in the Bible that were said to have happened with thousands of witnesses. If they indeed happened then there should be plenty of evidence to show that, the primary thing being that we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

    With that thought in mind, you have to realize that most of the planet do not believe in your Jesus Christ - they either disbelieve or they have their own religious beliefs that contradict yours. Therefore, this thread is to understand where Christians get the idea that Jesus Christ really existed considering there is no evidence to believe it. Here, you are making an unfounded claim that there could be no material evidence but I am not asking whether Jesus really turned wine into water, a scenario where your line of argument may hold.

    I don't think material evidence is unfair to ask for - do you?

    But again, you may be missing the trees for the forest here. Can I ask you a fundamental question regarding your objective with this thread? Are you willing to use “ intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice, the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way, unbias, and confidence in reason“ to consider the existence of Jesus Christ the incarnation of the Son of God?

    If so, I can present some reasoning and arguments that you can consider.
    I don't know if that would be too fruitful though. Because first you'd have to convince me God exists to even have a Son; then if I believe that, there is also the matter that Jesus Christ could be a demon, misleading all of humanity; then if you convince me he is the true son of God, there could also be the case that Jesus Christ in the Bible is still a fiction and that he didn't do the things said of him -- he could still have been the son of God, but didn't perform any miracles or anything unusual at all: but he was just very charismatic and convincing - much like the many religious leaders that we see today.

    So I don't really want to waste your time on what will end up being a fruitless exercise. However, if you wish to speak, then I will listen but bear in mind the barriers that are already in place. Or better still, maybe in another thread - I will respond. This thread is really about the physical evidence not spiritual or logical arguments: whatever you end up with will not suddenly bring material evidence appear.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; January 9th, 2015 at 08:02 PM.

  11. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I don't think material evidence is unfair to ask for - do you?
    Material evidence of Jesus waking on water 2000 plus years ago? Unfortunately, there were no smartphones back then with video capability that the people could pull out of their robes to record-out-of-the ordinary events, nor was CNN, the Discovery Channel or Fox News up and running yet. What much of ancient history is composed of is the testimony of what was recorded and observed. Also bear in mind the ruling class back then denied the miracles of Jesus that some of them witnessed with the people because it was politically inconvenient for them to admit what they witnessed, let alone document. Yes, politics was alive and active back then also.

    But consider that even if there was physical evidence today of Jesus walking on water or raising someone from the dead 2000 years ago—what does that really prove? Miracles do not prove God’s existence and Jesus knew that and spoke of it. Miracles are a good way of getting people’s attention quickly; they may help support your message; they are effective in getting people out of their mental box so they can at least listen to your message – but ultimately they do not prove the existence of the Almighty. Why? Because miracles are just the manipulation of energy that is not restricted by the known boundaries of our physical laws. Is God’s power the only force that can manipulate energy? I don’t think so nor can I support that. There were lots of people back then who witnessed such events who just wrote them off as being flukes by some magician.

    I don't know if that would be too fruitful though.
    Ok, I may bow out for now.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  12. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Opinion noted. As long as you understand that you haven't offered any arguments as to why others should reject the Bible as a history book, ...
    They should reject it as history because...

    The Gospels are not independent nor are they reliable as historical fact.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...y/gospels.html

    "The gospels are not always independent of each other. Matthew and Luke, for example, probably had Mark's gospel sitting right in front of them when they were writing."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteri...le_attestation


    "There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives,..."

    "Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact."

    "The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

    ...and what about all the 'Gospels' that were rejected by the Church fathers because they didn't fit the image of JtC that the Church wanted to portray.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...t-9849839.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...as-473141.html

    ---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    There is an Option C; namely that it is possible that Josephus and Tacitus are indeed referring to the very same Jesus as mentioned in the NT manuscripts.
    They may be. Your task is to show that they are referring to actual historical documents about a miraculous man-god or whether they are simple relating stories originating from Christians or others that were in circulation. Josephus was writing his T.F 60 years after the events and Tacitus was early 2nd century. In both cases there was ample time for Christian beliefs about a man-god to have been in circulation.

    ---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    If the Bible Jesus didn't perform any miracles then I would agree with what you've here. But it is claimed he did and those actions would have had a massive impact on the thousands of people, some of whom would have written a great deal about those events; ...
    Exactly. It is indeed staggering to think that a three hour eclipse of the sun that plunged the planet into darkness went completely un-noticed by every person on the planet bar -yes you've guessed it - the unknown Gospel authors. Odd too that, during that eclipse the graves opened up an their inhabitants went for an impromptu stroll around Jerusalem - yet the only people that seemed to have noticed their promenade were the same chaps that noticed the eclipse.
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  13. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Material evidence of Jesus waking on water 2000 plus years ago? Unfortunately, there were no smartphones back then with video capability that the people could pull out of their robes to record-out-of-the ordinary events, nor was CNN, the Discovery Channel or Fox News up and running yet. What much of ancient history is composed of is the testimony of what was recorded and observed.
    No, not that miracle but the ones that had thousands of witnesses, that were truly extraordinary. Raising the dead, many of them in fact! The eclipse as mentioned by plad. The feeding of the 5,000. All the healings. His resurrection. These are not just in front of a few witnesses - there would have been many, many people - I'd guess thousands, some of which would have said something.

    Also bear in mind the ruling class back then denied the miracles of Jesus that some of them witnessed with the people because it was politically inconvenient for them to admit what they witnessed, let alone document. Yes, politics was alive and active back then also.
    Only the ruling classes could write? Jesus, wasn't in the ruling classes, and according to some he could write. Besides, surely the thousands of dead people walking around would have elicited some minor comment by someone.

    No, this is just an excuse invented to justify the lack of evidence. Also, you'll find that other theists are saying that T&J, written evidence, and not by rulers mind you, makes mention of Jesus Christ. Tell them their evidence doesn't exist - I agree!

    But consider that even if there was physical evidence today of Jesus walking on water or raising someone from the dead 2000 years ago—what does that really prove? Miracles do not prove God’s existence and Jesus knew that and spoke of it. Miracles are a good way of getting people’s attention quickly; they may help support your message; they are effective in getting people out of their mental box so they can at least listen to your message – but ultimately they do not prove the existence of the Almighty. Why? Because miracles are just the manipulation of energy that is not restricted by the known boundaries of our physical laws. Is God’s power the only force that can manipulate energy?
    It would provide a direct link between the claims people are making and the claims in the Bible. It is insufficient to be mentioned indirectly as people are showing.

    Now if you agree with me that no such evidence exists or could exist then there is nothing else to discuss - we had already reached this point before. The only thing we'd be quibbling over is that I would offer that nothing exists because the entire Bible is a fiction, whereas you'd have to defend another universe of existence which has enormous effect on thousands of people, yet leave no traceable mark or impression on them to preserve it: other than by a few people starting a religion.

    I don’t think so nor can I support that. There were lots of people back then who witnessed such events who just wrote them off as being flukes by some magician.
    And why would that reason be such a terrible one? Why does there even have to be miracles in order to prove that Jesus Christ exists? There is no reason for God, who doesn't appear to be into huge dramatic displays of power in the last 2000 years, to have done so with Jesus. He doesn't even have to be resurrected in order to have passed on the message.

    That's the problem with Christian thinking - making something that could be entirely plausible seem to be more than it really is: thus you have to admit you can't support it since no support is possible. Just not for the reasons you claim but for the fact they never happened in the first place.

    Ok, I may bow out for now.
    Sure. Thanks for the chat. FWIW, I don't think that Christians, or any religion for that matter are logically inconsistent, which I believe was what you'd be trying to do. I just don't think there is any real solid evidence to do so and that's the Faith part that for some very very odd reason appears to be something you are all afraid to admit to and it is the simplest, most honest and frankly, the most acceptable reason.

    All the talk of 'historical' evidence or the historical reliability of the Bible, the spiritual world, deductive reasoning are unconvincing to non-believers anyway since it still rests of the Faith part kicking in at various points. Otherwise, Christianity would be the only religion!

  14. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, it is not 'necessarily' the case at all. I am saying something weaker, which is that there is currently no reason to believe that Jesus Christ exists - not that he actually doesn't. However, the chance of that being true is similar to any other imaginary universe being true (but that is another topic - this topic is to say that there is insufficient historical reason to believe he exists).
    Red herring. You aren't responding to what I wrote. I'll try to make it even simpler:

    JJ's Evidence Claim: It is necessarily the case that for a document/artifact to be considered "evidence" for the existence of Jesus, it must make reference to the miracles.

    This is not the same as your claim that there is no reason to believe Jesus exists. This is regarding the evidence, and specifically your method of analyzing historical documents/artifacts.

    Now that we're clear, I will restate my objection:

    The above claim (JJ's Evidence Claim) means that it is impossible that Josephus and Tacitus are referring to Jesus (as referenced in the NT manuscripts) because they do not make mention of the miracles. This is flawed reasoning because:

    This is a False Dilemma. There is an Option C; namely that it is possible that Josephus and Tacitus are indeed referring to the very same Jesus as mentioned in the NT manuscripts. I only have to come up with a possible scenario to defeat your argument. That possible scenario is of course that the corroborating details surrounding the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts and the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents match (i.e. Jesus had a brother named James, Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, etc.). This offers a compelling reason to believe that the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents is one in the same as the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts.

    Of course, it doesn't have to be compelling or even plausible, only possible--because that is how your argument is structured.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Specifically on J&T, they are rejected on the basis that they are make no mention of Jesus Christ's miracles in a manner that is incontrovertible. How do I know that? Because we are having this discussion. That the question of his existence is debatable means that there is no evidence otherwise.
    This is a False Dilemma as demonstrated above, thus your argument against Josephus and Tacitus (and anything that mentions Jesus for that matter) is defeated.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    But it is claimed he did [perform miracles] and those actions would have had a massive impact on the thousands of people, some of whom would have written a great deal about those events; to see them unmentioned makes is much more likely that Jesus Christ and all the claims made of him are a fiction.
    The only reason the miracles are "unmentioned" is because you arbitrarily decided to ignore the documents/artifacts that mention the miracles. Which brings me to the challenge that I issued you:

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, it I just clarified that statement - miracles are interesting as a study of how humans imagine how a deity might work but I doubt that any 'serious' historian, that isn't already Christian would bother studying the actuality of the miracles.
    Red herring. This has nothing to do with whether or not "Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record."

    So again, please support or retract that mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    In fact, it's not even a specific claim of mine - it isn't accepted as a history book in the first place for me to reject. If religious claims were history then they would be called history - why do you think the distinction is there in the first place?
    What do you mean here by "history book"? What do you mean here by "religious claims"?

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo
    They should reject it as history because...

    The Gospels are not independent nor are they reliable as historical fact.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...y/gospels.html

    "The gospels are not always independent of each other. Matthew and Luke, for example, probably had Mark's gospel sitting right in front of them when they were writing."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteri...le_attestation


    "There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives,..."

    "Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and historians tend to look upon supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus as questions of faith, rather than historical fact."

    "The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

    ...and what about all the 'Gospels' that were rejected by the Church fathers because they didn't fit the image of JtC that the Church wanted to portray.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...t-9849839.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...as-473141.html
    Lot of red herrings. If you're going to put forward a coherent argument, then you might consider actually doing so instead of posting a bunch of links that should be considered linkwarz.

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo
    They may be. Your task is to show that they are referring to actual historical documents about a miraculous man-god or whether they are simple relating stories originating from Christians or others that were in circulation. Josephus was writing his T.F 60 years after the events and Tacitus was early 2nd century. In both cases there was ample time for Christian beliefs about a man-god to have been in circulation.
    That's the thing--it isn't my task to show that at all. I didn't make any claims here--JJ did. The burden of proof is squarely on his shoulders, so please stop trying to shift it.

  15. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Lot of red herrings. If you're going to put forward a coherent argument, then you might consider actually doing so instead of posting a bunch of links that should be considered linkwarz.
    Red herring??? How so? I does not distract from the relevant point which was you asking why people should not accept the Bible as history. I have given you some reasons why they should not. Can you dispute the reasons I gave.

    Amazing isn't. When we don't supply a link to support our claim we get challenged, when we do, that's wrong too!. You asked why others should not accept the Bible as history. I gave you reasons by copying a section from one of my earlier posts to Squatch. After reading the links, do you still think that the Bible should be regarded as history and if so why, when the authenticity and reliability of these sources is questioned and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted?


    That's the thing--it isn't my task to show that at all.
    Well you did put it forward as a third option so why don't you support that option that they may be referring to Jesus The Christ - or do we just regard it as unsupported opinion?
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  16. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Red herring. You aren't responding to what I wrote. I'll try to make it even simpler:

    JJ's Evidence Claim: It is necessarily the case that for a document/artifact to be considered "evidence" for the existence of Jesus, it must make reference to the miracles.

    This is not the same as your claim that there is no reason to believe Jesus exists. This is regarding the evidence, and specifically your method of analyzing historical documents/artifacts.

    Now that we're clear, I will restate my objection:

    The above claim (JJ's Evidence Claim) means that it is impossible that Josephus and Tacitus are referring to Jesus (as referenced in the NT manuscripts) because they do not make mention of the miracles. This is flawed reasoning because:
    This is a False Dilemma. There is an Option C; namely that it is possible that Josephus and Tacitus are indeed referring to the very same Jesus as mentioned in the NT manuscripts. I only have to come up with a possible scenario to defeat your argument. That possible scenario is of course that the corroborating details surrounding the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts and the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents match (i.e. Jesus had a brother named James, Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, etc.). This offers a compelling reason to believe that the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus' respective documents is one in the same as the Jesus mentioned in the NT manuscripts.

    Of course, it doesn't have to be compelling or even plausible, only possible--because that is how your argument is structured.



    This is a False Dilemma as demonstrated above, thus your argument against Josephus and Tacitus (and anything that mentions Jesus for that matter) is defeated.
    Nope. The OP states:

    The strongest evidence is that there is has been no actual independent corroborating evidence that such a man ever existed nor of his miraculous deeds forwarded other than in religious texts. For a man of such great acts, some affecting thousands (e.g. the feeding of the 5,000, the rising of the dead) it is surprising that no record would remain of such deeds - none first-hand and certainly none second hand, especially considering there are many detailed records that exist of that time.
    I didn't say impossible. This is in your own imagination - the word I use, and I used it deliberately was chosen so as to not to get into weird scenarios where someone can claim the Bible is true because J&T mention ordinary things such as Rome existing, or believers of Jesus Christ existing, or any number of references that are not miracles. Yes, it is indeed possible that somehow that this is the same Jesus Christ, but it is extremely unlikely, and therefore surprising, the word I did use, that there would be mention of Jesus Christ and no mention of the great acts, especially of him resurrecting.

    Given the context of the document as a history (and not a list of names and relationships or people killed by Pontius Pilot), it is reasonable, to conclude this Jesus Christ (assuming that Jesus Christ, the full title was used) is not the same one. It is hardly unique that there is a John Smith with a brother James who was crucified.

    However, since your statements of belief are stronger, that it is possible that these two are the same, then you have say explain why it is still compelling to believe this. I haven't seen any direct link yet - it is wholly unwarranted to make the assumption that the T&J character is not the Jesus Christ in the Bible especially since T mostly makes references to early Christians, whose existence is not in dispute and neither does their existence prove the existence of their Messiah. J makes passing reference of two names and is flimsy reasoning, just as there are 106 people named "Harry Potter" in the USA (source). And there are 106 named Jesus Christ (source) - that doesn't mean he exists today either does it?

    In summary, I never said impossible and your claims of weak evidence being compelling is rejected. I don't accept the kinds of arguments 'logically possible' and think they are entirely unreasonable; I have been careful with the OP not to make these kinds of arguments.


    The only reason the miracles are "unmentioned" is because you arbitrarily decided to ignore the documents/artifacts that mention the miracles. Which brings me to the challenge that I issued you:

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.



    Red herring. This has nothing to do with whether or not "Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record."

    So again, please support or retract that mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record. Challenge to support a claim.
    It is not arbitrary - it is one of the distinctive and defining qualities and events surrounding Jesus Christ of the Bible. The references you make in T&J are not the same character and that is why if you read Eye's post, that those claims are optional and up to individuals to believe.

    That should be self-explanatory - non-Christians do not also believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and son of the God that created the universe. However, looking back it does appear to be another claim you have put on me - that specific phrasing is your own interpretation of my claim. Please refer to my own specific words in future and accept my apologies for accepting that.


    What do you mean here by "history book"? What do you mean here by "religious claims"?
    A history book describing the natural world, happenings of the Earth and people within. By religious claim, I mean statements that are only accepted within a particular religion.

    Note: Let's focus on claim 1 and challenge 1 since the rest of it appears to be your own take on my OP. We already have problems with your interpretation of Claim 1 and I'd rather focus on one claim at a time. You're going to have to start over with challenges 2 & 3 since they're not my words but yours.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; January 10th, 2015 at 07:46 AM.

  17. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo
    I'll take that to mean that you have no answer to what I have put forward to defeat your question as to why people should not accept the Bible as evidence for JtC. Amazing isn't. When we don't supply a link to support our claim we get challenged, when we do, that's wrong too!. You asked why others should not accept the Bible should not accept the Bible as history. I gave you reasons by copying a section from one of my earlier posts to Squatch. After reading the links, do you still think that the Bible should be regarded as history and if so why when the authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted?
    No, I didn't bother reading the links because I shouldn't have to do the homework for you. If you want to make a case, then make it here. Posting a link is not making a case. I'll refer you to the rules on the matter:

    Quoting External Sources

    You are encouraged to provide support for any claims you make through the use of external sources. However, it is inappropriate to simply provide one or more links or sources (including embedded videos) and proclaim that all one needs to do is review them. Readers should not have to access your sources before they understand your argument. Where possible, you should provide a short summary of the link/video you have posted. Members who fail to observe this rule will be guilty of what is colloquially known as "linkwarz."

    Until you can actually forward a coherent argument without resorting to linkwarz, I'm not going to waste my time.

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo
    Well you did put it forward as a third option so why won't you support it?
    I don't need to support it further. That is the inherent weakness of JJ's argument. All I need to do is make a case that it is possible that Josephus and Tacitus are referring to Jesus as mentioned in the NT Manuscripts, nothing more, and his argument is defeated.

  18. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    No, I didn't bother reading the links....
    Why am I not surprised.

    ...because I shouldn't have to do the homework for you.
    You don't have to do any homework! I've done the work for you. You asked why people shouldn't accept the Bible as history and I have given you some reasons why. The 'coherent argument' has been submitted in earlier posts. What I gave you was a snippet from one of those posts that was relevant to your question.

    Until you can actually forward a coherent argument without resorting to linkwarz, I'm not going to waste my time.
    It has already been supplied throughout the thread. Haven't you read the thread?

    I don't need to support it further.
    You can't support it further. If you could you would so 'nuff said!
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  19. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I didn't say impossible. This is in your own imagination - the word I use, and I used it deliberately was not to get into weird scenarios where someone can claim the Bible is true because J&T mention ordinary things such as Rome existing, or believers of Jesus Christ existing, or any number of references that are not miracles. Yes, it is indeed possible that somehow that this is the same Jesus Christ, but it is extremely unlikely that there would be mention of Jesus Christ and no mention of the great acts, especially of him resurrecting.
    Red herring. This is what I am responding to:

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Josephus and Tactitus are automatically excluded from this since much discussion has been had of them and [B]neither make reference to a miracle worker.[/I] Other evidence may surface during this debate but unless they mention any of the miracles that would have had many witnesses, they are automatically dismissed too.
    So--one more time:

    JJ's Argument: It is necessarily the case that for a document/artifact to be considered "evidence" for the existence of Jesus, it must make reference to the miracles.

    This is a flawed argument because it is a False Dilemma, and can thus be rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yes, it is indeed possible that somehow that this is the same Jesus Christ
    I agree. It is a False Dilemma to argue otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    but it is extremely unlikely that there would be mention of Jesus Christ and no mention of the great acts, especially of him resurrecting.
    That is your case to make. You haven't offered any evidence thus far, so:

    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that it is extremely unlikely that there would be mention of Jesus Christ and no mention of the great acts, especially of him resurrecting.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Given the context of the document as a history (and not a list of names and relationships or people killed by Pontius Pilot), it is reasonable, to conclude this Jesus Christ (assuming that Jesus Christ, the full title was used) is not the same one.
    You haven't actually demonstrated that to be the case. You just asserted it. There's a difference. As such:

    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that it is reasonable to conclude that given the context of the document as a history (assuming Josephus and Tacitus), that the Jesus mentioned in Josephus and Tacitus is not the same as the Jesus mentioned in the New Testament Manuscripts.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    However, since your statements of belief are stronger, that it is possible that these two are the same, then you have say explain why it is still compelling to believe this.
    No I don't. All I have to do is show that it is possible. I've already gone through this.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I don't accept the kinds of arguments 'logically possible' and think they are entirely unreasonable; I have been careful with the OP not to make these kinds of arguments.
    I'm not the one forwarding unsupportable, invalid claims. You are.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It is not arbitrary - it is one of the distinctive and defining qualities and events surrounding Jesus Christ of the Bible. The references you make in T&J are not the same character and that is why if you read Eye's post, that those claims are optional and up to individuals to believe.
    Your claim that Josephus and Tacitus are not referring to the same Jesus as in the NT manuscripts has not been supported. So:

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Josephus and Tacitus are not referring to the same Jesus as the NT manuscripts.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That should be self-explanatory - non-Christians do not also believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and son of the God that created the universe.
    Red herring. Whether non-Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, son of God that created the universe, has no bearing on whether they reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.

    Here's the challenge again:

    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that Mainstream, non-Christian historians reject artifacts or documents that make religious claims and do not include them as part of the historical record.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    A history book describing the natural world, happenings of the Earth and people within. By religious claim, I mean statements that are only accepted within a particular religion.
    Please demonstrate why the two are mutually exclusive--meaning that a history book cannot also include religious claims.

  20. #39
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Red herring. This is what I am responding to:



    So--one more time:

    JJ's Argument: It is necessarily the case that for a document/artifact to be considered "evidence" for the existence of Jesus, it must make reference to the miracles.

    This is a flawed argument because it is a False Dilemma, and can thus be rejected.
    Trimming the fat - please show where I am saying it is necessarily the case. I understand you are responding to that statement but that statement is being incorrectly attributed to me. I can't continue until you accurately relay what I said.

  21. #40
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: There is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Trimming the fat - please show where I am saying it is necessarily the case.
    If you declare that a certain piece of data is automatically rejected as evidence, it has to be because the data is necessarily irrelevant to the topic at hand. If it is not necessarily the case that the data is irrelevant, then there is no basis on which to automatically exclude the data as evidence. Logic 101 stuff, here.

    Now, I'm no scholar, but I'm guessing that Fruend's belief the you think that that Josephus and Tacitus should be "automatically excluded" because "neither make reference to a miracle worker" stems from when you said that "Josephus and Tacitus are automatically excluded from this since much discussion has been had of them and neither make reference to a miracle worker".

 

 
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?
    By wanderer566 in forum Formal Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 4th, 2011, 03:23 PM
  2. Jesus never existed
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: September 7th, 2007, 11:34 AM
  3. Jesus Christ...
    By ladyphoenix in forum Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 12th, 2007, 12:06 AM
  4. Validity of Jesus Christ
    By yogurt252 in forum Religion
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: March 15th, 2007, 11:52 AM
  5. Italian court to decide if Christ existed.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 10th, 2006, 03:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •